Howard Shore's The Desolation Of Smaug (Hobbit Part 2)

[gkgyver 1,645]

We need Hans Zimmer I tell ya! And his circle of vuvuzela players, which will then be processed with synthesizers to sound just like Inception.

We need the world's first fart circle. Circling farts supported by bass drum.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

In all seriousness, I have to reluctantly admit, hearing Howard Shore's (no doubt detailed!) orchestrations handled and polished by Conrad Pope makes me realize Marcus [Paus] was spot on with his assessment on Howard Shore's weaker orchestration chops.

There is a clarity to the soundscape of these samples that we haven't heard heard before in the Rings films. And I don't think it's just the recording quality or the change in orchestra, though I'm sure they contribute.

A valid comparison here is Conrad Pope's influence on The Matrix Reloaded.

I'm actually not very familiar with the circumstances surrounding that, I'd love to hear about it though!

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Well that's completely fair, yes, but I just don't understand the notion that he is a weak orchestrator, which I haven't only seen expressed here. It's obvious to me that he orchestrated these scores in a very specific way, to sound a certain way, and it seems like some people interpret that as being the "wrong" way.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Faleel 5,326]

I just wish the added reverb to the LOTR scores were not so obvious.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

The reverb does cover up details. But at the same time it really fits with the whole aesthetic of the score I think.

The first thing that comes to mind are the cello arpeggios under the chorus during the wide shot of Gandalf and the Balrog falling. They get swallowed up by the reverb.

[Faleel 5,326]

No?

Listen to "The Palantir" on a decent volume, the reverb tail lasts forever.

[publicist 4,643]

Well that's completely fair, yes, but I just don't understand the notion that he is a weak orchestrator, which I haven't only seen expressed here. It's obvious to me that he orchestrated these scores in a very specific way, to sound a certain way, and it seems like some people interpret that as being the "wrong" way.

That insinuates he could do this stuff any other way...judging his body of work, that's not really the case. It's like saying John Barry could have written dense action music like EMPIRE STRIKES BACK for THE BLACK HOLE, he just chose a different style which would be utter nonsense. Shore may be more versatile, but judging his counterpoint and coloristic tendencies, i doubt that we ever were in for an orchestral feast á la WILLOW & Co.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Reminds me of the Zimmerites saying "he's not a bad composer, he just chooses this particular style".

Listening to DoS in comparison to AUJ, I certainly hear a tiny difference in the orchestration, but I'm not sure if DoS sounds this way because Pope was involved, or whether AUJ sounds different and slightly less diverse because post-production was mayhem and hand-written orchestrations were time-consuming.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Well that's completely fair, yes, but I just don't understand the notion that he is a weak orchestrator, which I haven't only seen expressed here. It's obvious to me that he orchestrated these scores in a very specific way, to sound a certain way, and it seems like some people interpret that as being the "wrong" way.

That insinuates he could do this stuff any other way...judging his body of work, that's not really the case. It's like saying John Barry could have written dense action music like EMPIRE STRIKES BACK for THE BLACK HOLE, he just chose a different style which would be utter nonsense. Shore may be more versatile, but judging his counterpoint and coloristic tendencies, i doubt that we ever were in for an orchestral feast á la WILLOW & Co.

Whether or not he could or would choose to do things differently is irrelevant. I'm just pointing out that how a composer orchestrates their music is typically one of the most personal stages of composition. It's a pet peeve of mine when people critique orchestration when there aren't any obviously lazy or egregious deficiencies, because it's then just a matter of taste and telling someone how to write their music. Anyway, I won't pontificate on it any further.

[publicist 4,643]

Yeah....if point one is completely "irrelevant" to you, you most certainly are a sound judge of what constitutes "obviously lazy or egregious deficiencies".

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

[gkgyver 1,645]

If a composer orchestrates a certain way, then it's not because he can't do it differently, it's because he doesn't want to do it any other way unless he is required to.

Shore talks about orchestrations frequently I think, and his point is something that pertains to all composers who orchestrate their own work; it's a matter of your own inner musical voice. You orchestrate in the way that feels and sounds right to you. And why not? Why would you suddenly tamper with your voice if it doesn't feel right for you? Once you do that, I think it's very easy to lose your musical instinct because you're dealing with something you're not used to.

And I don't think a film composer, where time is usually short (unless your name is John Williams), can afford that.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[publicist 4,643]

If a composer orchestrates a certain way, then it's not because he can't do it differently, it's because he doesn't want to do it any other way unless he is required to.

Shore talks about orchestrations frequently I think, and his point is something that pertains to all composers who orchestrate their own work; it's a matter of your own inner musical voice. You orchestrate in the way that feels and sounds right to you. And why not? Why would you suddenly tamper with your voice if it doesn't feel right for you? Once you do that, I think it's very easy to lose your musical instinct because you're dealing with something you're not used to.

And I don't think a film composer, where time is usually short (unless your name is John Williams), can afford that.

If i can't do it any other way, of course i do it the way i can or i would indeed feel "uncomfortable". It's not rocket science, you know?

But from my limited understanding of harmony and counterpoint, i deduct that Shore has limited capabilities in these areas if i compare him to composers more well-versed in those capacities.

The difference between us may be that i accept Shore's music for what it is (and it has its qualities) and don't try to cook up esoterical explanations why this stuff can get rather clumsy in parts. The rather monochrome writing style sure came at the right time: with the changed filmmusic landscape after 2000, LOTR from 2001 seems much more fitting for today's sound than, say, a Williams like PHANTOM MENACE .

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

If a composer orchestrates a certain way, then it's not because he can't do it differently, it's because he doesn't want to do it any other way unless he is required to.

Shore talks about orchestrations frequently I think, and his point is something that pertains to all composers who orchestrate their own work; it's a matter of your own inner musical voice. You orchestrate in the way that feels and sounds right to you. And why not? Why would you suddenly tamper with your voice if it doesn't feel right for you? Once you do that, I think it's very easy to lose your musical instinct because you're dealing with something you're not used to.

And I don't think a film composer, where time is usually short (unless your name is John Williams), can afford that.

But from my limited understanding of harmony and counterpoint, i deduct that Shore has limited capabilities in these areas if i compare him to composers more well-versed in those capacities.

Well, then I'd genuinely be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[publicist 4,643]

Well, then I'd genuinely be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

Don't hold me to cue names or track times, i'm too lazy to check. There are certain parts where Shore showed an imaginative flair, like the hardanger in TT or the layering of some of the choral stuff, the handling of the solo voices etc., then there are other parts that betray a rather conventional and compositionally not very interesting tendency to reach for grandiosity by just being LOUD via organ chords (long-held notes) and rather basic ostinati techniques, again often played by the most obvious instrumental groupings (the reverb tries to cover this at times, maybe?) often ofr minutes straight without much change even in tone and color...the same goes for his, imho, often monotonous suspense music that takes a rest for sometimes long stretches, again, organ chords, hardly a counterpoint or idea to handle the orchestral colors where it could have been crucial to make the music at least a bit more eventful.

As i said, the tendency to flatten the musical complexities in movie music since the late 90's, as in other kinds of popular music, played a part in making this much more viable to the general public, or indeed film music fans, than it might have become 20 years before.

Can you give any examples of clumsy sounding music in LOTR? If you have a limited understanding surely you don't know enough to judge someone else in the subject?

It's the internet, people do judge and rate all the time without any competence on the subject at all, and that includes also often as-inane doxologies which surprisingly seldom come under such close scrutiny. If i were to name a certain cue, i would take the whole siege of the fortress in TWO TOWERS, which i remember as rather one-note and musically disappointing. Shore seems to me most successful in writing big, incidental material, like music for big vistas and such. This stuff was always great, and i remember a cue called GILRAEN'S MEMORIAL from LOTR that comes closest to what i would have hoped all the music for these films could have achieved.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Well, then I'd genuinely be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

Don't hold me to cue names or track times, i'm too lazy to check. There are certain parts where Shore showed an imaginative flair, like the hardanger in TT or the layering of some of the choral stuff, the handling of the solo voices etc., then there are other parts that betray a rather conventional and compositionally not very interesting tendency to reach for grandiosity by just being LOUD via organ chords (long-held notes) and rather basic ostinati techniques, again often played by the most obvious instrumental groupings (the reverb tries to cover this at times, maybe?) often ofr minutes straight without much change even in tone and color...the same goes for his, imho, often monotonous suspense music that takes a rest for sometimes long stretches, again, organ chords, hardly a counterpoint or idea to handle the orchestral colors where it could have been crucial to make the music at least a bit more eventful.

As i said, the tendency to flatten the musical complexities in movie music since the late 90's, as in other kinds of popular music, played a part in making this much more viable to the general public, or indeed film music fans, than it might have become 20 years before.

That's all fair, and I wouldn't presume to try and change your opinion, but you'll forgive me if I feel the need to over-respond.

So, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration. Ok. Well TTT and ROTK have their own riches in these departments, but I think FOTR is a brilliant enough score to stand on its own.

First let's look at some interesting orchestrations, starting with the first minute of Keep It Secret, Keep It Safe. Initially simple tension in string clusters, but this erupts into a "dark" and "glassy" sheen of fluttering strings, winds, and celesta, underpinned by heavy, roving low strings and winds. This builds into the moment where Bilbo slips the ring off, marked by a soft brass chord, an upward sweep of violins, wind chimes/mark tree, and a light cymbal roll. Then Hobbity intervals in the low winds. Not quite monochrome.

The Doors of Durin, during the Watcher sequence starting around 3:20. Something stirs under the surface of the lake, and the basses do slithery quarter tone glides with the contrabassoon accenting the target notes. Then the music for the discovery of the dead of Moria, and the Watcher's appearance itself. The aleatory here is obviously all over Shore's scores, but this is one of the most wild and unsettling appearances, with stabbing, non-vibrato trumpet clusters, wailing horns at the top of their registers, etc.

How about Khazad-Dum, at 7:32? Those low strings jumping up into their higher registers is heart wrenching.

Caras Galadhon, 3:35 to about a minute later, and a similar passage in The Fighting Uruk-Hai during the gift scene, 2:43 to 4:00 in that track. The main material is covered by ethereal, very still strings and women's voices, with glimmering arpeggios in the celesta and harps. Under this is a more sinewy line for mid-low range winds, brass, and strings, minus the brass/winds in the second excerpt. Again, anything but monochrome - these are all subtle and extremely effective colorations.

Now, harmony. This is where you are most accurate about feeling Shore has "limited" resources, but "limited" in this case does not nearly equate to "few." There's quite a bit of movement by thirds, especially major thirds, which is a very Wagnerian sound and there's no mystery in his inclinations towards that. I'll also avoid talking merely about harmonization of themes or motives.

However, consider the build up in Give Up The Halfling from 1:47 to 2:48. That's a skillful mounting of tension using relatively simple harmony and clusters, leading up to the statement of the wraith theme.

The Doors of Durin again, but this time, the little moment for the reveal of the Doors themselves starting at 1:37. Luminous bitonality, with a sustained triad underneath a sequence of rising major chords. It's these small gestures where much of the ingenuity of these scores is apparent.

The Dwarrodelf sequence in Balin's Tomb. I have no technospeak to tout this moment, it's just incredibly moving harmonically. This entire cue is harmonically very satisfying though, moving deftly between tonal areas of the opening moments' sad grandeur to the ominous reading of the book, the battle scene's dissonance, the airy relief that Frodo is still alive/Mithril reveal, and then the big statement of the Fellowship theme that spins off into a propulsive clusteral crescendo.

The same gifting sequence from The Fighting Uruk-Hai mentioned above - these are a very facile few moments harmonically, gracefully sliding from one sonority to the next.

Finally counterpoint. This is one thing that increases as you move in the scores chronologically. Shore has said that he didn't want to write with too much contrapuntal complexity at the start of the story - by the time you get to ROTK, you have some thrilling moments, particularly during the Pelennor battle, but in this first chapter he specifically said he was more reserved with writing that way as the story doesn't yet have the scope that really calls for it in his vision.

That said, there are a few choice moments, fleeting though they may be.

Gilraen's Memorial, 2:10 - 2:19, very delicate interplay between the clarinet and oboe.

Khazad-Dum, 0:21 - 0:30, clashing lines with the horns playing declamatory phrases and the strings scurrying around similar pitches in counterpoint.

The Road Goes Ever On… Pt. 1, 0:51 - 1:22, gorgeous dialogue in the strings.

So... I obviously had a bit of time on my hands today. Don't misconstrue it as "fanboying" or anything like that, I just enjoy trying to encourage others to appreciate things that I appreciate.

[Faleel 5,326]

Oh and for those who think Harpsichord/Clavichord does not fit middle-earth:

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Wow that takes me back.

[Faleel 5,326]

BTW, I hope that cue has harpsichord in it, I know that most of the action cues have Harpsichord in them, so I just picked one at random.

BTW that is one of KK's favorit scores, he especially loves the "Mooordooor, Mooordooor" chanting, and the Blaster Beam.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

In all seriousness, I have to reluctantly admit, hearing Howard Shore's (no doubt detailed!) orchestrations handled and polished by Conrad Pope makes me realize Marcus [Paus] was spot on with his assessment on Howard Shore's weaker orchestration chops.

Could you quote Marcus's post or better yet, could he elaborate this? I'd much rather hear the opinion of an accomplished composer than the musings of an obnoxious, pseudo-intellectual windbag.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Could you quote Marcus's post or better yet, could he elaborate this? I'd much rather hear the opinion of an accomplished composer than the musings of an obnoxious, pseudo-intellectual windbag.

Wow.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Could you quote Marcus's post or better yet, could he elaborate this? I'd much rather hear the opinion of an accomplished composer than the musings of an obnoxious, pseudo-intellectual windbag.

Wow.

That wasn't directed at you, FWIW.

[Incanus 5,713]

In all seriousness, I have to reluctantly admit, hearing Howard Shore's (no doubt detailed!) orchestrations handled and polished by Conrad Pope makes me realize Marcus [Paus] was spot on with his assessment on Howard Shore's weaker orchestration chops.

Could you quote Marcus's post or better yet, could he elaborate this? I'd much rather hear the opinion of an accomplished composer than the musings of an obnoxious, pseudo-intellectual windbag.

Please refrain from making personal attacks or resorting to name calling Mr. Shark (previously know as Prometheus) on this forum no matter how much these contrary opinions and views of other MB members might differ from yours. Civility, please!

[publicist 4,643]

That said, there are a few choice moments, fleeting though they may be.

Gilraen's Memorial, 2:10 - 2:19, very delicate interplay between the clarinet and oboe.

Khazad-Dum, 0:21 - 0:30, clashing lines with the horns playing declamatory phrases and the strings scurrying around similar pitches in counterpoint.

The Road Goes Ever On… Pt. 1, 0:51 - 1:22, gorgeous dialogue in the strings.

So... I obviously had a bit of time on my hands today. Don't misconstrue it as "fanboying" or anything like that, I just enjoy trying to encourage others to appreciate things that I appreciate.

I don't think i would disagree on the choices (i even mentioned GM), and Shore is hardly a slouch, but the proof is in the pudding, and there still so much more simple/bombastic stuff that to me doesn't approach any of these heights. Thank you for providing examples that i may have noticed myself, but what about all the loud stuff? Do you really think that's all layed out like that on design and Shore easily could have written Goldenthal-like complexities into it? I find that rather hard to believe.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

That said, there are a few choice moments, fleeting though they may be.

Gilraen's Memorial, 2:10 - 2:19, very delicate interplay between the clarinet and oboe.

Khazad-Dum, 0:21 - 0:30, clashing lines with the horns playing declamatory phrases and the strings scurrying around similar pitches in counterpoint.

The Road Goes Ever On… Pt. 1, 0:51 - 1:22, gorgeous dialogue in the strings.

So... I obviously had a bit of time on my hands today. Don't misconstrue it as "fanboying" or anything like that, I just enjoy trying to encourage others to appreciate things that I appreciate.

I don't think i would disagree on the choices (i even mentioned GM), and Shore is hardly a slouch, but the proof is in the pudding, and there still so much more simple/bombastic stuff that to me doesn't approach any of these heights. Thank you for providing examples that i may have noticed myself, but what about all the loud stuff? Do you really think that's all layed out like that on design and Shore easily could have written Goldenthal-like complexities into it? I find that rather hard to believe.

Well, that's something that neither of us can ever really know. All I know is that he is a trained, experienced musician. I'm not sure what you mean by "loud stuff" either, though it's difficult to argue that his action music is for everyone if that's what you mean. In those sequences, like the rest of his work, he is very reserved with his highly complex writing. It's probably worth also taking into account his philosophy of scoring, which is very informed by operatic principles. He wants the music to support, but not to stick out, so that accounts for his more subtle approach barring those moments where he feels dramatically justified in letting loose. It's like Mozart setting a recitative very simply, and then writing flashy for an important dramatic moment.

But I think where we actually differ is that you want to compare it all to something - Goldenthal, for example. I'm satisfied to just take a composer's style and voice as it stands. And if this reads to you as defensive drivel, well, what can I do?

[publicist 4,643]

I can't help comparing it, naturally. I don't necessarily expect Shore to write complex music for complexities sake, it's just that i have listened to enough of his works to notice that he IMHO seems more at home in scores like THE CELL or COSMOPOLIS than in this kind of opulent Hollywood scoring, so i think the end result sure is more of a compromise than say, a Horner or Williams opus, whose natural habitat these kind of scores are. Which is of course hard to argue if people (not you, but there are enough of them) get so touchy about someone even fleetingly mentioning such "outrageous" claim.

That said, i also found the new samples much more promising than the first score's, which i tried several times on Spotify and found, apart from a few more colorful vignettes like EDGE OF THE WILD, really boring.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I can't help comparing it, naturally. I don't necessarily expect Shore to write complex music for complexities sake, it's just that i have listened to enough of his works to notice that he IMHO seems more at home in scores like THE CELL or COSMOPOLIS than in this kind of opulent Hollywood scoring, so i think the end result sure is more of a compromise than say, a Horner or Williams opus, whose natural habitat these kind of scores are. Which is of course hard to argue if people (not you, but there are enough of them) get so touchy about someone even fleetingly mentioning such "outrageous" claim.

That said, i also found the new samples much more promising than the first score's, which i tried several times on Spotify and found, apart from a few more colorful vignettes like EDGE OF THE WILD, really boring.

Ah yes, that I agree with, that his natural habitat is a different kind of score. But, I don't see this foray into opulent Hollywood scoring as a compromise or a sort of fluke. I think it was a stroke of fortune, and wouldn't in retrospect choose any other composer to replace him. The sound world that he created utterly embodies Middle-Earth in my mind, in a way that no one else could have, and that's not an indictment of the skill of any of his colleagues. It's an assertion that the filmmakers knew exactly what they wanted, and that Shore was the person to best deliver it.

It's unique, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Horner and Williams are seasoned blockbuster composers but that's precisely the point - Shore delivered something new that they likely wouldn't have.

[Richard Penna 3,667]

I'm not sure 'best person to deliver it' is even the right term. This ventures also into why Williams fanboyism irritates me so much.

Rather, a composer's output is going to be within the constraints that the director gives the composer, so PJ & Co knew the sound they wanted, and liked what Shore gave them. If they'd hired Williams or Horner, I'm sure PJ would be happy with what they'd produce too.

Actually, didn't PJ ask Horner, who turned it down? (I seem to remember he didn't want to commit to a franchise)

[publicist 4,643]

It's unique, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Horner and Williams are seasoned blockbuster composers but that's precisely the point - Shore delivered something new that they likely wouldn't have.

I'm not sure if it all was that new (though i wouldn't trade it for another danger motif fest). I still would have preferred the first choice (Kilar) or Goldenthal, as my personal dark horse.

@Richard Penna: Horner certainly got an interest call like some other big name composers by the production company because he was a hot property back then. Williams most likely got one, too.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Faleel 5,326]

BTW TheGreyPilgrim, are you the member from TORn with the same name?

[publicist 4,643]

If it sounds so stunning to so many people surely it is great music.

Well, one might say that should be a good pointer why it is no great music, but let's leave it at that...

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

BTW TheGreyPilgrim, are you the member from TORn with the same name?

Afraid not. I've only ever lurked over there.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Faleel 5,326]

If it sounds so stunning to so many people surely it is great music.

Well, one might say that should be a good pointer why it is no great music, but let's leave it at that...

Well, we might also use that logic with Mozart, Goldsmith, Beethoven, Williams, etc., but lets leave it at that...

[Bilbo 3,709]

Them Beatles chaps were a bit popular and all.

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[ChrisAfonso 186]

I greatly enjoy Shore's Middle Earth scores and see that he put a lot of thought into them, resulting in a lot of beautiful, suspenseful, rousing and/or scary passages. And one thing you can really say is that they are really homogenous, not in the sense of everything sounding the same, but everything sounding like one big developing work. I think this is a direct consequence of his broad-stroke style to melodic writing and orchestration. A composer used to writing much more instricate counterpoint or even "Mickey-Mousing" (to mention the extreme opposite) would have had much more trouble to keep the sound coherent over so long an opus. I agree to what has been said before, Shore really has a very different style than the usual suspects of epic fantasy scoring, and I like that this sets his scores apart from others and makes them instantly unique.

But I have to agree with Publicist, that Shore often has serious limitations in writing effortless, organic harmonic/melodic progressions, subtle instrumentation and a lively texture, as much as it mostly works to his advantage in the case of these scores (as mentioned above). Between the high points, there are countless passages of simple blocky triads (usually in the low brass or strings) repeated for suspense, minute-long stretches of increasing tension scored via chromatically rising almost-full-orchestra block chords (taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ta Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ta TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TA TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!), which becomes so formulaic that I wasn't really surprised about Shore's Kong rejection after hearing the exact same thing in the preproduction diary on those scoring sessions, and simplistic melodic ideas (mind you, not nearly all of them - but not too few, either). The strength of those simple melodies lies in the variation and interconnection throughout the scores, which is the reason I really enjoy discovering those and listening to the slow development. When he writes counterpoint, similarly to his harmonic progressions, it often feels forced - laboriously crafted to mostly fit together, but not exactly organic. Again, I feel I have to interject this, I enjoy many of those passages, but I see the limitations there - repeated sudden jumps in a counterpunctual line, jarring modulations that are only motivated by fitting to the underlying harmony... And regarding the comparison with Wagner earlier: Wagner uses to modulate a lot (in later works often constantly) and thus moves from one key into the other. Shore often jumps without any established connection. Yes, he also uses mediant relations a lot, and this is a nice trademark of his style, but there are also places where it just seems that there is no intrinsic harmonic connection.

A loaded topic, I know. I just enjoy this music for what it is, for what it isn't, and for what it evokes - there are so many passages in the trilogy, and some again in the first Hobbit score (and I hope many to come) that move me profoundly, I can't even start to count them (and that's not only because of the connection with the source material, I was in love with "The Ring goes South" and the Dwarrowdelf reveal as soon as I got the first CD back then, two weeks before the film).

[SafeUnderHill 205]

[Jay 37,271]

Totally agreed.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I greatly enjoy Shore's Middle Earth scores and see that he put a lot of thought into them, resulting in a lot of beautiful, suspenseful, rousing and/or scary passages. And one thing you can really say is that they are really homogenous, not in the sense of everything sounding the same, but everything sounding like one big developing work. I think this is a direct consequence of his broad-stroke style to melodic writing an orchestration. A composer used to writing much more instricate counterpoint or even "Mickey-Mousing" (to mention the extreme opposite) would have had much more trouble to keep the sound coherent over so long an opus. I agree to what has been said before, Shore really has a very different style than the usual suspects of epic fantasy scoring, and I like that this sets his scores apart from others and makes them instantly unique.

But I have to agree with Publicist, that Shore often has serious limitations in writing effortless, organic harmonic/melodic progressions, subtle instrumentation and a lively texture, as much as it mostly works to his advantage in the case of these scores (as mentioned above). Between the high points, there are countless passages of simple blocky triads (usually in the low brass or strings) repeated for suspense, minute-long stretches of increasing tension scored via chromatically rising almost-full-orchestra block chords (taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ta Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ta TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TA TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!), which becomes so formulaic that I wasn't really surprised about Shore's Kong rejection after hearing the exact same thing in the preproduction diary on those scoring sessions, and simplistic melodic ideas (mind you, not nearly all of them - but not too few, either). The strength of those simple melodies lies in the variation and interconnection throughout the scores, which is the reason I really enjoy discovering those and listening to the slow development. When he writes counterpoint, similarly to his harmonic progressions, it often feels forced - laboriously crafted to mostly fit together, but not exactly organic. Again, I feel I have to interject this, I enjoy many of those passages, but I see the limitations there - repeated sudden jumps in a counterpunctual line, jarring modulations that are only motivated by fitting to the underlying harmony... And regarding the comparison with Wagner earlier: Wagner uses to modulate a lot (in later works often constantly) and thus moves from one key into the other. Shore often jumps without any established connection. Yes, he also uses mediant relations a lot, and this is a nice trademark of his style, but there are also places where it just seems that there is no intrinsic harmonic connection.

A loaded topic, I know. I just enjoy this music for what it is, for what it isn't, and for what it evokes - there are so many passages in the trilogy, and some again in the first Hobbit score (and I hope many to come) that move me profoundly, I can't even start to count them (and that's not onlz because of the connection with the source material, I was in love with "The Ring goes South" and the Dwarrowdelf reveal as soon as I got the first CD back then, two weeks before the film).

Forgive me, but... these points strike me as a tad clinical. Why can't contrapuntal lines jump? Why must modulation be not jarring? Why must there be intrinsic harmonic connection? It seems like you're judging these things based on guidelines for an exercise in a university harmony textbook.

When there's 12 hours of music being recorded, the passages of chords and suspense seem perfectly justified to me. Especially when it's music written for film, where sometimes the dialogue has to take presidence and let the music be atmospheric in the background.

Precisely - that's part of the whole operatic principle. Of course, one could argue that silence might be better, but....

[ChrisAfonso 186]

I'm not saying I'm really eloquent enough to put these points forward as precisely as I mean to (you'd need a wizard for that...) These are my observations, and as mentioned a lot of it is deliberate on Shore's side to keep the music archaic (which works really well), other things are just intrinsic to his style, which has its strong points in other areas (just from the top of my head - compare Elfman, who is really good at creating very creative and intricate single cues, but less so on the "keeping it coherent for several hours" front). I haven't really heard anything by Shore yet that has convinced me that he is really comfortable at a more instrumentationally woven style. There are passages in The Aviator that really get the counterpoint going, but they're over very soon and devolve into LotR-minor-chord-swells-with-bass-string-arpeggios accompanied by castagnets. It seems he's more at home with more compact, concentrated sonorities and the development of those, rather than multilayered orchestrations of the interconnected kind. And at writing in his own style, he's really good. Wasn't that why Jackson is said to have approached him? He wanted the more psychological, internal side, rather than flashy fanfares (which Shore writes when it's called for, but holds back otherwise ).

Forgive me, but... these points strike me as a tad clinical. Why can't contrapuntal lines jump? Why must modulation be not jarring? Why must there be intrinsic harmonic connection? It seems like you're judging these things based on guidelines for an exercise in a university harmony textbook.

When there's 12 hours of music being recorded, the passages of chords and suspense seem perfectly justified to me. Especially when it's music written for film, where sometimes the dialogue has to take presidence and let the music be atmospheric in the background.

Precisely - that's part of the whole operatic principle. Of course, one could argue that silence might be better, but....

re 1) Forgive me, but my impression is the opposite: that Shore's counterpoint writing sometimes seems more like an arduous course exercise, than a free artistic elaboration I'd hope someone else is able to express this better than me, because of course it does not have to be not jarring, it can jump as much as it wants - as long as it sounds and feels musically justified, or deliberately aims for a jarring effect, of which I have the general impression that with Shore that's mostly not the case.

re 2) Exactly, and that is where the strengths of this style come out: It allows him to keep the music (and suspense/mood) going while fading into the background and not doing much for a while - a sequence of repeated swells to carry over to the next moment where he can rise into the foreground again and heighten the excitement or segue to something else. But I'd dispute that this is "the whole operatic principle". In opera writing the "background music" (as much as music in an opera can be considered background) is usually more active in keeping with the development of the drama.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

I'm not saying I'm really eloquent enough to put these points forward as precisely as I mean to (you'd need a wizard for that...) These are my observations, and as mentioned a lot of it is deliberate on Shore's side to keep the music archaic (which works really well), other things are just intrinsic to his style, which has its strong points in other areas (just from the top of my head - compare Elfman, who is really good at creating very creative and intricate single cues, but less so on the "keeping it coherent for several hours" front). I haven't really heard anything by Shore yet that has convinced me that he is really comfortable at a more instrumentationally woven style. There are passages in The Aviator that really get the counterpoint going, but they're over very soon and devolve into LotR-minor-chord-swells-with-bass-string-arpeggios accompanied by castagnets. It seems he's more at home with more compact, concentrated sonorities and the development of those, rather than multilayered orchestrations of the interconnected kind. And at writing in his own style, he's really good. Wasn't that why Jackson is said to have approached him? He wanted the more psychological, internal side, rather than flashy fanfares (which Shore writes when it's called for, but holds back otherwise ).

Forgive me, but... these points strike me as a tad clinical. Why can't contrapuntal lines jump? Why must modulation be not jarring? Why must there be intrinsic harmonic connection? It seems like you're judging these things based on guidelines for an exercise in a university harmony textbook.

When there's 12 hours of music being recorded, the passages of chords and suspense seem perfectly justified to me. Especially when it's music written for film, where sometimes the dialogue has to take presidence and let the music be atmospheric in the background.

Precisely - that's part of the whole operatic principle. Of course, one could argue that silence might be better, but....

re 1) Forgive me, but my impression is the opposite: that Shore's counterpoint writing sometimes seems more like an arduous course exercise, than a free artistic elaboration I'd hope someone else is able to express this better than me, because of course it does not have to be not jarring, it can jump as much as it wants - as long as it sounds and feels musically justified, or deliberately aims for a jarring effect, of which I have the general impression that with Shore that's mostly not the case.

re 2) Exactly, and that is where the strengths of this style come out: It allows him to keep the music (and suspense/mood) going while fading into the background and not doing much for a while - a sequence of repeated swells to carry over to the next moment where he can rise into the foreground again and heighten the excitement or segue to something else. But I'd dispute that this is "the whole operatic principle". In opera writing the "background music" (as much as music in an opera can be considered background) is usually more active in keeping with the development of the drama.

1) Ultimately all that can be said further about that is that there's no accounting for taste. We can't be in his head to know how he thinks - so it just comes down to if it moves you or not. I'd be interested to know what specific moments you have in mind though.

2) There is also singing in opera. The whole musical element is shifted "down" so to speak from opera to film. Singing becomes speech, and accompaniment becomes, in this case anyway, less concerned with itself.

[TownerFan 4,983]

I'm not saying I'm really eloquent enough to put these points forward as precisely as I mean to (you'd need a wizard for that...) These are my observations, and as mentioned a lot of it is deliberate on Shore's side to keep the music archaic (which works really well), other things are just intrinsic to his style, which has its strong points in other areas (just from the top of my head - compare Elfman, who is really good at creating very creative and intricate single cues, but less so on the "keeping it coherent for several hours" front). I haven't really heard anything by Shore yet that has convinced me that he is really comfortable at a more instrumentationally woven style.

I totally see where you're coming from and you raise an interesting topic. However, we really cannot escape the flat fact that any film composer doesn't write blind and/or following necessarily what maybe would be his/her own personal preferences (or the fans' wishes!) in a pure musical sense. The choices of the whole musical lexicon (melody, harmony, orchestration, counterpoint) must always gel with the necessities of the film itself. In the case of LOTR, it really is a choice of economy to keep most of the underscoring simple and lean--these 3hrs-plus movies are accompanied by music from beginning to end, hardly there is a tacet for the orchestra. If the orchestrational/harmonic language is too dense and fancy, then it would be totally overbearing. Of course this is also a stylistic choice on the filmmakers' and the composer's parts, but these choices have to deal also with practical issues of keeping things clear in the sound mixing room (the dialogue track is still the King there).

Of course you can bring the example of The Empire Strikes Back, where Williams pulled out all the stops and delivered an almost outrageous score where there is hardly an "homogenous" or homophonic passage (and indeed quite a few passages were dialed out in the final mix). But the original Star Wars films were very different beasts in comparison to LOTR--those Lucas' films were space adventure capers requiring an almost cartoonish/Korngoldian musical gesture, while Peter Jackson's Middle Earth films looks like more faux-historic fantasy epics and the score follows suit in that sense.

So, in this sense we should never compare the film work of composers like Shore or Williams to Wagner's operas.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Well said.